In discussions with clients and potential clients about projects or proposals that require them to step outside their comfort zone, I often hear two expressions:

• We need to crawl before we walk
• We want to get active online, but we need to take baby steps

I had never spent much time thinking about those statements before. I have heard both in the last few weeks regarding a project I’m working on. Ironically, Baby Quip is on the verge of crawling. Between thinking about the project and watching her, I realized exactly the former comment is terribly inappropriate. Thinking about Little Quip’s first attempts at walking, I realized the latter is as well.

They’re meant to convey a sense of trepidation, a deliberate approach to an endeavor that takes things slowly in an effort to minimize exposure. Unfortunately, that’s actually nothing like baby steps or learning to crawl.

Baby Quip is extremely aggressive. She is constantly pushing the envelope – flopping over onto her side to move to a crawling position, throwing herself here and there in an effort to move around. She is extremely determined to get from rolling to crawling to walking. Crawling before you walk? Hardly! If she could jump to two feet and take off at a full sprint, she’d be all over it. Yes, she must developmentally do one before, but she wouldn’t hesitate to skip a step. In the business world, such hesitance is not required.

That raises the latter comment. Since hesitance is not required, the baby steps comment implies a slow and cautious approach, but does it really? Heck no! Thinking back to Little Quip’s early days of mobility, he too was exceedingly aggressive in trying to walk. He would take small steps (which is where the term comes from, I suppose). However, he would take them very quickly, fall on his ass, get back up, and take even more. The falling didn’t bother him at all.

In common usage, “baby steps” means exactly the opposite. It means going very slowly because you don’t want to fall down. It means moving at a turtle’s pace to minimize the risk of exactly that. But baby steps, by nature, result in falls, spills, and trips. Early walkers understand that and accept it as part of the process. Again, they do these things due to physical limitations.

It’s funny that we have come to use terms that describe physical constraints to explain our mental ones. The next time anyone offers clich√©s as a way of expressing their timidity, I ought to introduce them to my kids.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia.’ But only slightly less well known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’

You can add one to that. When the only guy in the race that can hurt you is down, you need to make sure that guy doesn’t get back up.

I was trading e-mail with someone who asked what I thought of McCain’s ascendancy. While I think the story of his comeback is impressive, I think the story of Rudy’s failure is even more impressive.

When the story of 2008 is written, and Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is analyzed, I think they’ll actually find two great mistakes. The obvious mistake of writing off the early states is the first. The second, and less obvious though, is the mistake of not engaging McCain directly and not doing it last July.

McCain was the only person in the race with better credentials on National Security than Rudy. He had argued for the surge when it was politically unpopular, he had stuck to his guns and not made equivocating statements about it. He was also a POW and war hero. Other than that, on paper they were very similar with a spotty history of principled conservatism and a lot of baggage. To let McCain cruise through five states before trying to engage was a mistake. Rudy had one opponent he absolutely had to knock down before his Florida & 2/5 strategy would work, and that’s McCain.

They should have taken every opportunity to blow McCain out of the water last June. On July 1, it should have been the highest priority to go after his donors and go after his supporters hardcore. They needed to do whatever they had to do. By not taking the opportunity to put the wounded badger out of his misery, they allowed him to heal and get pissed.

Rudy’s colossal blunder wasn’t yesterday, it was last July.

A friend and I were just discussing the latest installment of When Bill Clinton Attacks. According to news reports today (which I can’t find to link), the former Pres has a new kinder, gentler press strategy that doesn’t involve tirades against his wife’s opponent, the media, or small children. Mr. View asked, as a Republican, if I thought the assertion that Bill Clinton was negatively impacting Hillary’s chances was accurate. It led to a lengthy discussion of why, exactly, it backfired.

There has been a lot of chatter about the fact that Bill Clinton is not a candidate for the Internet age. The storyline assumes that he doesn’t get the instant communication and was unprepared for the reaction and the speed with which it spread. I disagree. I think there is a good probability that the reaction had been the same if the old model still applied.

The fact is, Bill is revered by many, many Democrats in the same way Reagan was. He is seen as a larger than life figure, a hero to the little guy. If Reagan had, ten years after leaving office, popped back on the scene to savage a guy in his own party, or to throw petty charges at the media, it would have been undignified.

Obama is also seen by many as more of the heir apparent to Bill’s legacy than his wife. They see in him the same young(-ish), dynamic leader looking to rock DC and take America to a new era of greatness. They see Hillary as an opportunistic weasel looking to further capitalize on her husband’s success.

It also doesn’t help that the guy who lied to America about a BJ and dragged us into years of investigation was questioning someone else’s integrity. Hillary, as Mr. View argued, could be let off as an innocent victim of her husband’s philandering. Bill, however, has no moral high ground from which to challenge someone else.

That’s the problem Bill has. It’s not that the accusations are off about the media, it’s a matter of right message, wrong messenger.

It does, however, raise questions of what she knew and when she knew it? She wants to be seen as a candidate firmly in control of her surroundings, yet she also wants us to believe that Bill’s attack (an attack by her own husband) was completely his own doing and she had no knowledge of his intention to speak out. Frankly, I find it hard to accept that she had no idea what he was going to do. Her campaign is built on the “control and disseminate” model. They dole out information like rations to disaster victims, yet she had no idea what the man closest to her would say? I just don’t buy it.

With the over-delayed departure of John Edwards, and the implosion of Rudy Giuliani, the race for President comes down to four – Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney. Between them the race is now an endurance campaign to see who has the resources and stamina to see it to the wire.

It increasingly looks like McCain will come out of 2/5 with a near lock on the nomination and will round out the process shortly thereafter. Romney, no doubt, will probably drop from the race on 2/6 or 2/7.

What’s unclear is the state of the Democratic race. Tim Russert and Chuck Todd were on Today this morning discussing the state of play as we look at the apportionment of delegates, the makeup of the superdelegates and the likelihood that their race may continue into the spring. The best part was Tim Russert’s comment about Rudy:

From a national frontrunner to one delegate $50 million dollars later, it will be studied by political scientists for years. It was a disaster.

That may actually turn out to be a bigger flop than Howard Dean’s $50 million debacle in 2003-2004 because on a cost per vote basis, Rudy fares far worse at this point. Dean also had the scream, so you can point to a total meltdown of his campaign. Rudy just had a terrible strategy. Note to future candidates, skip one early primary? Maybe. Skip five? Not so much.

Now, other than the eventual Democratic nominee, the one open question is when Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee will come to the conclusion that they have run their course and drop out as well. The longer Huckabee clings to the idea that he can win, the more petty he looks. He’ll undoubtedly make some snide comments about Romney stealing his votes. To be fair to him though, for a week or two before Iowa it looked like Huck might be the guy. That has to hurt.

The next big question is who will become the Pat Buchanan of 2008 and deliver a spastic, knee-jerk extremist speech at the convention that harms their parties chances for winning three months later? Will either party deny the also rans a place at the podium?

Honestly, my money is split now between Huckabee and Paul. Either Huckabee stands up and makes an impassioned case that homosexuals are the equivalent of rapists, molesters and monkey-humpers; or Paul goes off on a 20 minute tirade against the World Bank and advocates for the legalization of black tar heroine. Either way, it will be interesting to watch.

I’m a bit late to the party on this, but hopefully it’s fashionably late, and not like the guy that gets there after everyone has gone home and wants to sit and chat despite the fact that you’re dropping hints for him to get out. I thought I’d take a closer look at the new BarackObama.com. I still think, despite all the prognostications that Hillary has it locked, that he’ll pull this out and be the eventual nominee – even if it takes a floor fight.

This started as a review of the recently revamped website, and became sort of a hybrid post about the site and some general issues with online campaigns in general. I have to be honest; I began from the point of view that I don’t really get why they changed the site at all. The vast majority of voters is still tuned out, probably had not been to the site, and therefore wouldn’t really be sick of it. However, I realize that the staff probably was, the hardcore supporters probably were, and since Obama believes that change is good, well…

If the post gets kind of disjointed about halfway through, that’s because the review also coincided with an interview I did with Jose Vargas and some questions about how campaigns should be using their site to engage voters in states where they may have little to no time to campaign as a result of the compressed primary schedule. After that call, I began to look at Obama’s site through that prism, and specifically began to compare it to other sites through the same lens.

In other words, I wrote half of it when I was with Linda, and half of it after we broke up. And I should warn you I was listening to the Cure a lot.

Color Scheme and Appearance

Honestly, I’m not a big fan of the glowing blue ethereal cloud look. It’s a little too artsy for me. You can’t really make it out in the screen grab above, but they also have a mesh effect oddly reminiscent of the background on dollar bills behind the sign up option. When they continue the flowing blue angel effect into the headline, as they did above, it makes the whole page a little overbearing. It’s way too blue, and feels like I have died and Obama is the maker. I can’t imagine that’s the look they were going for.

On a whole other level, the site also contradicts one of the things so many people credit him for – his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Wasn’t it he who spoke of no liberal America and no conservative America, but only one America. Didn’t he challenge the idea of pundits dividing us into red states and blue states? Yet he seems to be sending a signal that he is the bluest of the blue.

I don’t know if that was their intention, but as a Republican, it was the first thing I noticed. It’s very, very, very blue.

The other big problem the site has is readability. With the text and background colors they have chosen, large chunks of the site become almost entirely unreadable. Take these two examples:

I’m no expert on graphic design, but I like to think I have a pretty good bead on what does and doesn’t fly on the web. I also have a pretty good feel for what is and isn’t W3C Compliant. Both of the examples above fail that test. The choice of grey text on white also causes readability issues throughout the site

Now I freely admit that I’m one of the older dogs in the online politics game. I’m knocking on 38 and most of the people I work with on campaigns are just out of (or still in) college. I suppose it’s possible that Obama’s website is kind of like the mosquito ringtone – only those under 30 can read it. If so, that might explain the huge advantage he enjoys with young voters.

Unfortunately, it causes a significant number of others to have a heck of a time working his navigation. Where I am from, that’s a bad thing.

The Action Center

I continue to be a big fan of Obama’s action center. Since the last time I spent time exploring his web presence, not much has changed as far as functionality with the exception of the online phone bank. One thing struck me about that tool, however. The Bush campaign referred to its online phone bank as Neighbor to Neighbor and under the larger umbrella “Personal Precinct”. Mitt has “Call from Home” Thompson had “Phone for Fred”, and McCain calls his, simply, “Online Phone Bank”. These are less than clever names to be sure, but I do think these tools need to have a brand that conveys a) exactly what’s expected and b) how simple that is. Obama calls his “Peer Contact”. If I saw that as an uninitiated volunteer, new to the process, I would have no idea what it was. Even “Make Calls for Obama” would be better than “Peer Contact.”

One problem Obama shares with his chief rival Hillary Clinton is a limited implementation of their calling tool. When I log in to Obama’s application, I have the three options to make calls with two of those being into New Mexico. Hillary’s, on the other hand, has only one option to make calls into California regarding absentee ballots (aren’t there other primaries coming up?).

(note: the screen grab above was taken after the post was drafted. When I logged back in, I only had two options, but originally had three.)

I’m not sure if any of the Republicans are any better at this. I can’t log in to Romney’s TMAC, McCain is focused solely on Florida (as he should be), and Rudy doesn’t seem to have such a tool (at least, not that I could find quickly, and on the Internet if you can’t find it fast, it may as well not be there at all). I tried signing up for a Team Rudy password, but ten minutes later have not received my confirmation/validation e-mail.

Looking just at the Dems, though, at least when I click on Obama’s, I get people and a script. When I click on Hillary’s, I get a message indicating that “no callees are available”. Huh? Are you kidding me? You can’t find anyone in California for me to call? What about those other states? You know, the ones voting next Tuesday. With Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado , Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah all picking their nominee next week, you would think the two campaigns would have some folks to call.

States

Obama does make good use of a tactic we tried with the Bush campaign in 2004 – creating state specific pages with content relevant to the specific location. The bad news is the New Mexico page, a week before their election, is broken (pictured at right). The other states voting next week seem to be fine and contain interesting content. For instance, Obama has done a good job of including the ads they’re running in the states. Many campaigns run ads only in one location to talk to specific segments of the population. Pre-YouTube, these ads were often never seen by people in other states. Obama has provided them on a state by state basis providing some nice transparency.

Campaigns can leverage those state urls in ads and drive voters in each state to specific information about the candidate and activities available to help. While campaigns are getting better at including their url in their ads, it can still be a tough sell to get the leadership to include them throughout the entire ad.

In 2004, Kerry’s team did a great job of getting the campaign to understand the value of driving traffic with an ever-present address. The GOP still doesn’t do that in most cases. They see the url as a distraction from the message. I’d like to see a campaign like Barack’s employ not only a steady state url, but also make it specific to the state. An ad with the address BarackObama.com/NewMexico is more likely to grab my attention than simply BarackObama.com. I’m more likely to come back. As long as that ad is running, the state page should also feature more information specific to the ad in question.

The one thing missing

The one thing I really don’t see on Obama’s site is Obama. I see his picture up top, and I see clips of his speeches in their video content, but I don’t see a lot of him making a personal contribution to his site. I’d really like to see him posting regularly, or doing some candid video. I’d really like to see him being as active in his community as he’s asking us to be.

This is a complaint that I have of almost all the campaigns. In most cases, the url for these sites is the candidate’s name, but that’s about the only thing on which they have left their mark. The sites still feel corporate. They still feel more like the website for IBM. Some sort of connection with the candidate is why people are coming to the site, yet the site is often the last place you can find the candidate’s imprint.

Below Average

Overall, I’d give the makeover a “C-”. I was a fan of the old site, and just really think they took this in the wrong direction. I didn’t test it with a screen reader for 508 compliance, because it was hard enough to read without a screen reader. I can’t imagine that would make it easier. The contrast is way off, making a lot of the text hard to read. However, at least that takes your mind off the overwhelming blueness of it all.

The tools he provides are quite good, but the implementation is a bit off. I’d like to see more call opportunities in states voting next week. If there is still no clear nominee next Wednesday, it will become increasingly expensive to run in every state. The Internet could be a powerful tool for both communicating to the states where financial limitations make door-to-door campaigning hard. They can empower their people to be the force multiplier (as they should be doing for next week).

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be doing this, so at least Obama doesn’t stand out.